Colors appear as bubbles, each respective of their named sample size. So colors like “red” and “green” tend to be the largest. Hover over them, and you can see which gender dominated that particular name. Where things get interesting, of course, is when you highlight colors that are technically the same as “green” but have different names. And it’s in these spots that the gender differences (and stereotypes) really shine.

Women are, as expected, far more specific and poetic with their color names. “Orchid,” “clover,” “seafoam,” and “macaroni and cheese.” These are colors you don’t just see, but that you can smell, taste, and feel. They’re borderline synesthetic.

My fellow men don’t fare as respectably–with the term “greenish” definitely constituting a highlight. (Really, green…ish? WTF does that mean?) But most of our color naming is Neanderthalic combinations of simple colors and adjectives. Dark red. Grunt. Red brown. Grunt. In a rare moment of brilliance, my sex somehow summoned “oxblood,” which, in retrospect, just belabors the knuckle-dragging point.

Amongst all this battle of the sexes, however, the true organizational brilliance of the infographic may go entirely unnoticed. These paint blots aren’t just single colors, you see, but hidden gradients. “The circles have the advantage that they allow a wide range of values to be represented via their area,” Von Worley explains. So it’s often many different colors that we’re all–men and women alike–rounding into generic “red” or “green” pools.

In other words, as complicated or unimpressive as our gender-driven nomenclatures may be, we’re all guilty of oversimplifying things, just a bit.